wilsdenrover

I’m sure there would have been an outcry if they did something their rules don’t permit.

There’s a lot of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ in modern football. People going against what their eyes are telling them because the ‘right people’ are saying what they’re seeing is wonderful.

I’d say the only caveat to that is Ipswich could have added to their submission the fact the drainage issue is a known one which we’ve done nothing to resolve. Whether that would have changed the outcome, who knows, but it would certainly have added weight to their argument.

If they were honest, they’d answer ‘it depends which of the teams we were’ (as suggested in your opening sentence).

They won’t want to say that now in case it prejudices any appeal. They won’t want to say it later as it will mean spending money.

Tragic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jye4v64no

If our ground is inadequate (and I’m not saying it isn’t) shouldn’t the EFL be insisting we remedy this?

Nope, we should want the rest of the match to be played. The result stands vs full replay are not the only options.

and we’d be wrong for doing so.

If we hosepipe the river won’t our drains then work properly? 🤔🧐

Hopefully we’ll win the replay 2-0 and Ipswich then miss out on promotion/are relegated by 1 on goal difference. 😁

Well I think Mr Plod would have a word in that circumstance… It just seems very odd to keep that one detail from a match that’s otherwise deemed to never have happened.

We’d also need Ipswich’s permission given the pricing plan we will have submitted to the EFL.

That’s, as I may have said a number of time now 😁, a good reason for not awarding us the win. It isn’t, in my opinion, a good reason for replaying in full.

The ban remaining for the red card just adds to the ridiculousness of the situation.

Re the bit in bold - that’s why Ipswich should get those remaining, 10, 15, 20 minutes it doesn’t justify them getting to start from scratch. ‘so late’ is clearly a relative term and in any event this was one of the three things I mentioned which in combination hasn’t happened before. Is it a choice between appealing or improving the drains or could we do both? I wouldn’t appeal by the way, I think you’re being optimistic in giving it a 1% chance of success.

I thought you meant me for a minute but then I remembered I’m never wrong. 😁

As others have pointed out there’s been no previous occurrence of a game being abandoned so late with one team both leading and a man up. I guess that’s the angle they’d be pushing given what else the club put in their statement. Won’t get them anywhere mind. The EFL hasn’t said they’ll change the rules, just that they’ll consult and issue guidance for any future occurrences. Cant see the point in that as surely the guidance won’t overrule precedence…

With those 3 points turning out to be significant.

I’d be interested in how the L1 and L2 representatives voted.

The EFL board decided: https://www.efl.com/about-the-efl/efl-board/

Nope, the three Championship club representatives are from PNE, Norwich, and Middlesbrough.

There is, or certainly shouldn’t be, a default decision. The regulation isn’t x happens unless y it’s any of xyz are possible. As I said earlier, why have flexibility in the rules if you’re always going to make the same choice.

The decision may have done many things but it certainly hasn’t upheld the integrity of the competition. By agreeing to develop new guidance they’ve as good as a admitted the current position is unacceptable.